America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 3 months ago by RayR. 33 replies replies.
Nikki Haley, asked what caused the Civil War, leaves out slavery. It's not the first time
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
RiverRatRuss Offline
#1 Posted: Thu, Dec 28 2023, 7:50 AM EST
Joined: 09-02-2022
Posts: 1,035
TWO WORDS: STATES RIGHTS

and Biden Chimes in "It was to Slavery" what a baffoon!!!

Nikki Haley, asked what caused the Civil War, leaves out slavery. It's not the first time

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley was asked Wednesday by a New Hampshire voter about the reason for the Civil War, and she didn’t mention slavery in her response — leading the voter to say he was “astonished” by her omission.

Asked during a town hall in Berlin, New Hampshire, what she believed had caused the war — the first shots of which were fired in her home state of South Carolina — Haley talked about the role of government, replying that it involved “the freedoms of what people could and couldn't do.”

She then turned the question back to the man who had asked it, who replied that he was not the one running for president and wished instead to know her answer.
After Haley went into a lengthier explanation about the role of government, individual freedom and capitalism, the questioner seemed to admonish Haley, saying, “In the year 2023, it’s astonishing to me that you answer that question without mentioning the word slavery.”

“What do you want me to say about slavery?" Haley retorted, before abruptly moving on to the next question.

Haley, who served six years as South Carolina's governor, has been competing for a distant second place to Donald Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. She has frequently said during her campaign that she would compete in the first three states before returning “to the sweet state of South Carolina, and we’ll finish it” in the Feb. 24 primary.

Haley's campaign did not immediately return a message seeking comment on her response. The campaign of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, another of Haley's GOP foes, recirculated video of the exchange on social media, adding the comment, “Yikes.”

Issues surrounding the origins of the Civil War and its heritage are still much of the fabric of Haley’s home state, and she has been pressed on the war’s origins before. As she ran for governor in 2010, Haley, in an interview with a now-defunct activist group then known as The Palmetto Patriots, described the war as between two disparate sides fighting for “tradition” and “change” and said the Confederate flag was “not something that is racist.”

During that same campaign, she dismissed the need for the flag to come down from the Statehouse grounds, portraying her Democratic rival’s push for its removal as a desperate political stunt.

Five years later, Haley urged lawmakers to remove the flag from its perch near a Confederate soldier monument following a mass shooting in which a white gunman killed eight Black church members who were attending Bible study. At the time, Haley said the flag had been “hijacked” by the shooter from those who saw the flag as symbolizing “sacrifice and heritage.”

South Carolina’s Ordinance of Secession — the 1860 proclamation by the state government outlining its reasons for seceding from the Union — mentions slavery in its opening sentence and points to the “increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” as a reason for the state removing itself from the Union.

On Wednesday night, Christale Spain — elected this year as the first Black woman to chair South Carolina’s Democratic Party — said Haley’s response was “vile, but unsurprising.”

“The same person who refused to take down the Confederate Flag until the tragedy in Charleston, and tried to justify a Confederate History Month," Spain said in a post on X, of Haley. “She’s just as MAGA as Trump,” Spain added, referring to Trump's ”Make America Great Again" slogan.

Jaime Harrison, current chairman of the Democratic National Committee and South Carolina's party chairman during part of Haley's tenure as governor, said her response was “not stunning if you were a Black resident in SC when she was Governor."

“Same person who said the confederate flag was about tradition & heritage and as a minority woman she was the right person to defend keeping it on state house grounds,” Harrison posted Wednesday night on X. “Some may have forgotten but I haven’t. Time to take off the rose colored Nikki Haley glasses folks.”

http://tinyurl.com/3z5j5ffe
RayR Online
#2 Posted: Thu, Dec 28 2023, 11:26 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,892
Nikki Haley CAVED to the LEFT and the MSM when she urged lawmakers to remove the Confederate battle flag from the statehouse because of that murderous idiot in Charleston. That's a fact. That made as much sense as would calling to remove the Stars and Stripes because some KKK and Nazi idiots co-opted the use of that American flag at their protests.

Biden is historically illiterate by choice as most are on the left and many are on the right. That's a fact.
Biden's slave state of Delaware was a Union state as were 5 other Union slave states during and after the war. Proponents of the myth that slavery was the only cause of the war ALWAYS forget the inconvenient truth of real history.

"They ignore the six Union slave states, the Corwin Amendment, the War Aims Resolution (war is being waged for Union, not to end slavery), Lincoln’s very clear statements that the war is about preserving the Union, and a ton of conclusive evidence that slavery was not the cause of the North’s invasion of the South."

Secession Declarations Do Not Prove the War was over Slavery

By Gene Kizer, Jr.February 25, 2022

Quote:
ACADEMIA’S ABSOLUTE PROOF that the War Between the States was fought over slavery is based primarily on the declarations of causes for the secession of four of the first seven Southern states to secede: South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas.

However, those four declarations prove nothing of the sort.

There were 13 Southern states represented in the Confederate government. That 13 included Missouri and Kentucky, which were divided states that did not actually secede. They remained Union slave states – two of six Union slave states – the entire war (WHAT! UNION SLAVE STATES! I thought the war was fought over slavery with the Union fighting to end slavery! Man, they should have started with their own country).

In fact, three of the six Union slave states – New Jersey, Kentucky and Delaware – had slavery several months after the war. It took the second 13th Amendment in December 1865 for slavery to end in those three Union slave states.

Remember, the first 13th Amendment was the Corwin Amendment that left black people in slavery forever, even beyond the reach of Congress, in places where slavery already existed. It was passed by the Northern Congress, ratified by several states and strongly supported by Abraham Lincoln before the war made it moot.

The Corwin Amendment was the true feeling of the North on the slavery issue though it is only one small piece of the irrefutable evidence that the North did not go to war to end slavery.

More...

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/secession-declarations-do-not-prove-the-war-was-over-slavery/
RayR Online
#3 Posted: Thu, Dec 28 2023, 1:38 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,892
BREAKING NEWS!
Well, what do you know boys! Nikki CAVES under pressure and serves up a helping of word salad to explain it.


Nikki Haley responds to Civil War controversy: 'Of course the Civil War was about slavery'

Story by Mabinty Quarshie

Quote:
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley responded to a brewing controversy regarding her failure to mention slavery as a primary cause of the Civil War during a town hall event Wednesday night.

Haley has since amended her statement, saying, "Of course the Civil War was about slavery, that's the easy part of it," during a Thursday morning interview on The Pulse of NH, a radio program in the Granite State.

"What I was saying was what does it mean to us today?" Haley said. "What it means to us today is about freedom. That's what that was all about. It was about individual freedom."

Haley went on to say the war was about economic freedom and individual rights.

"Our goal is to make sure no, we never go back to the stain of slavery, but what's the lesson in all of that?" she said.

Nikki Haley today: “Of course the Civil War was about slavery. We know that. That’s the easy part of it. What I was saying was what does it mean to us today? What it means to us today is about freedom. That’s what that was all about.”

pic.twitter.com/6qqP0ijCM9
— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) December 28, 2023

More...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/nikki-haley-responds-civil-war-controversy
delta1 Offline
#4 Posted: Thu, Dec 28 2023, 8:30 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,794
it's not caving when you drop pretense and antiwo and acknowledge historical truth...

If she had stuck with her states rights argument, she would've made the far right antiwo Southern conservatives happy while turning off more moderate cons and independents, all of whom agree with historical reality about the Civil War. Truth will always set you free...
8trackdisco Offline
#5 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 8:41 AM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,078
delta1 wrote:
it's not caving when you drop pretense and antiwo and acknowledge historical truth...

If she had stuck with her states rights argument, she would've made the far right antiwo Southern conservatives happy while turning off more moderate cons and independents, all of whom agree with historical reality about the Civil War. Truth will always set you free...


It is more complex than that. Invested a bunch of years reading, researching, and traveling, getting perspectives, listening and learning about the Civil War. Too complex to summarize in a post. But ask Bloody Spaniard- I’ll wildly charge a windmill, so here goes.

From the Southern perspective, Lincoln was the ultimate Libtard. That election was enough for them. They no longer wanted to be a part of this club of states called the United States. The North told them you can’t quit. The South (Similar to trying to cancel your Amazon Prime) said they can and they will. At that point, they started to break things, starting with Fort Sumter.

Lincoln wanted the country to remain United States, going so far as to say if freeing all the slaves would unite the country, he’d do it. If keeping slavery in place would keep the country United, he’d do that too.

That in itself doesn’t make the war primarily about slavery.
8trackdisco Offline
#6 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 9:07 AM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,078
Also, if you’re watching Colorado and Maine, looks like they have their own cases of States Rights Fever.
RiverRatRuss Offline
#7 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 9:13 AM EST
Joined: 09-02-2022
Posts: 1,035
8trackdisco wrote:
It is more complex than that. Invested a bunch of years reading, researching, and traveling, getting perspectives, listening and learning about the Civil War. Too complex to summarize in a post. But ask Bloody Spaniard- I’ll wildly charge a windmill, so here goes.

From the Southern perspective, Lincoln was the ultimate Libtard. That election was enough for them. They no longer wanted to be a part of this club of states called the United States. The North told them you can’t quit. The South (Similar to trying to cancel your Amazon Prime) said they can and they will. At that point, they started to break things, starting with Fort Sumter.

Lincoln wanted the country to remain United States, going so far as to say if freeing all the slaves would unite the country, he’d do it. If keeping slavery in place would keep the country United, he’d do that too.

That in itself doesn’t make the war primarily about slavery.


Well Read 8... what Lincoln was offering was an Olive Branch Approach to quell Peace fir both sides to remain as one United States, this come during all Hell breaking lose over the States Rights!!!
RiverRatRuss Offline
#8 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 9:26 AM EST
Joined: 09-02-2022
Posts: 1,035
8trackdisco wrote:
Also, if you’re watching Colorado and Maine, looks like they have their own cases of States Rights Fever.


Yep... been watching goes back to my question in another Post on Trump making the Ballor in all 50 states before deadline? Or can the Federal Supreme Court step right over all 50 states to rule on eligibility? and the 1st and 14th amendments are at the basis of the issue? It will get very interesting!! Beer
DrMaddVibe Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 9:52 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,440
This topic was tabled here before. I can remember Wheelrite eloquently nailed salient points in the entire "states rights" focal point.

I stepped up with what few here had ever heard of or even knew existed. It tears the lid off the whitewashing use of "states rights".


https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1os2xmaster/chapter/primary-source-reading-stephens-cornerstone-address/

Make no mistakes, it was about preserving the Antebellum. There were rumblings in DC about outlawing slavery. That would deny the South the ability to maintain the lifestyle. While Ft. Sumter was the beginning of the Civil War, the fuse was lit years before with border skirmishes culminating with John Brown and events at Harper's Ferry. A hop, skip and a jump to DC proper. That was all about freeing the slaves.

I'm quite proud and sad at the same time of the country I belong to. If we had listened to what the Founding Father's proposed at the inception of this great nation the spilling of American blood could've been avoided. Some of the same states that wouldn't ratify the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were the same ones that ripped away from the United States. On the other side, we showed the world how dead set it was against slavery. Not states rights. Slavery. The wheels (see what I did there? RIP) were in motion to repeal slavery with the open ended documents given to us. When that moment arrives we want to change them, we could. We did. I don't believe there's another nation that pitted brother against brother to eradicate slavery.

The more you read how the Confederacy really was an insurrection, you begin to see the Democrats for what they are. Throughtout history the repeated pattern of wanting to tear the US down. Was the Civil War, a real insurrection equal what happened on January 6th? Only a complete moron would say they were the same.
RiverRatRuss Offline
#10 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 10:30 AM EST
Joined: 09-02-2022
Posts: 1,035
^ Well Put DMV, but on the history I've read over the years Terrifs on southern states was surmounting to succeeding from the Union as America Did from England not so many years prior... I grew up with an entire sets of EncycloBritanicka (Sp) growing up in the 60's-70's where todays History doesn't portray the history of old lessons and articles such as below are few and far between...


Proponents of tariffs as primary cause of the Civil war claim:

"Since they were so dependent on trade, by 1860 the Southern states were paying in excess of 80 percent of all tariffs” The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 2002, ISBN 0-7615-3641-8, page 135-126:

“During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859” Was the Civil War about tariff revenue? By Walter Williams - Washington Examiner 2/19/13

It is relatively easy to verify that Southern ports paid much less. According to “Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat” by Douglas B. Ball, in 1860 out of total $52.3 million custom collection, southern ports paid $4.0 million (7.6%).

However, it should be considered that because some supplies from overseas were landed in New York and then carried south, southerners as final consumers indirectly paid bigger than 8% portion of tariffs (by no mean 75-80%).

Most likely South paid no more than proportional (by white population) share of tariffs, and probably less, according to contemporary eyewitnesses:

*“When the valued exports and imports of any of the Southern states are compared, it is found that the former is invariably exceeds the latter, in consequence of the want of a consuming class… It is common theme for the Southern politicians to lament the want of enterprise among the merchants in conduct a foreign import trade… But the truth is, there are few imports required, for every Southern town tells the same tale” North America, its agriculture and climate, by Robert Russell, Edinburgh 1857

“A very large part of our duties are collected on the class of goods for which there is almost no demand at all from the South, either directly or indirectly – woolen and fur goods, for instance; of the goods require for the South not a few have been practically free. The whole slave population of the South consumes almost nothing ... The majority of the population habitually makes use of no foreign production except chicory, which, ground with peas, they call coffee. I have never seen reason to believe that with absolute free trade the cotton States would take a tenth part of the value of our present importations. And as I can judge from observation of the comparative use of foreign goods at the South and at the North, not a tenth part of our duties have been defrayed by the South in the last twenty years” The Cotton Kingdom, Vol. 1, by Frederick Law Olmsted, New York – London, 1861

http://tinyurl.com/525sxc87
8trackdisco Offline
#11 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 10:34 AM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,078
DrMaddVibe wrote:
This topic was tabled here before. I can remember Wheelrite eloquently nailed salient points in the entire "states rights" focal point.

I stepped up with what few here had ever heard of or even knew existed. It tears the lid off the whitewashing use of "states rights".


https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1os2xmaster/chapter/primary-source-reading-stephens-cornerstone-address/

Make no mistakes, it was about preserving the Antebellum. There were rumblings in DC about outlawing slavery. That would deny the South the ability to maintain the lifestyle. While Ft. Sumter was the beginning of the Civil War, the fuse was lit years before with border skirmishes culminating with John Brown and events at Harper's Ferry. A hop, skip and a jump to DC proper. That was all about freeing the slaves.

I'm quite proud and sad at the same time of the country I belong to. If we had listened to what the Founding Father's proposed at the inception of this great nation the spilling of American blood could've been avoided. Some of the same states that wouldn't ratify the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were the same ones that ripped away from the United States. On the other side, we showed the world how dead set it was against slavery. Not states rights. Slavery. The wheels (see what I did there? RIP) were in motion to repeal slavery with the open ended documents given to us. When that moment arrives we want to change them, we could. We did. I don't believe there's another nation that pitted brother against brother to eradicate slavery.

The more you read how the Confederacy really was an insurrection, you begin to see the Democrats for what they are. Throughtout history the repeated pattern of wanting to tear the US down. Was the Civil War, a real insurrection equal what happened on January 6th? Only a complete moron would say they were the same.


The Founding Fathers get an A- in my grade book. The minus because they chose to do the politically expedient route on slavery to get agreement from other states. You can’t leave a loose end like slavery ambiguous and say that All Men Are Created Equal, and then leave the dark ones in chains.

RiverRatRuss Offline
#12 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 10:52 AM EST
Joined: 09-02-2022
Posts: 1,035
You both have very good valid points.. and yet it still took America til the 1960's to start the change on the books!!! Northern states still had slaves after the war as pointed out in another post.. So one would have to question, was it really slavery or an Olive Branch extended to Late??
DrMaddVibe Offline
#13 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 12:14 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,440
8trackdisco wrote:
The Founding Fathers get an A- in my grade book. The minus because they chose to do the politically expedient route on slavery to get agreement from other states. You can’t leave a loose end like slavery ambiguous and say that All Men Are Created Equal, and then leave the dark ones in chains.



Given all of the illegal immigration since Biden its pretty safe to say that those willing to risk everything (to include breaking our laws) will do anything to live in an A- world than wherever they came from. They lack the ability, wisdom and fortitude to change whatever is broken in their own country. Meanwhile a political party, that just happens to be the DNC have welded open the border gates and promise anything to people that have nothing. Willing to bet that they'll have their future support.

President Johnson played the game and infected races of people into poverty.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#14 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 12:16 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,440
RiverRatRuss wrote:
You both have very good valid points.. and yet it still took America til the 1960's to start the change on the books!!! Northern states still had slaves after the war as pointed out in another post.. So one would have to question, was it really slavery or an Olive Branch extended to Late??


It was the same DNC that refused to usher in Civil Rights.

See the pattern yet?

The DNC is a terrorist organization.


Remember that time Haley removed the Confederate battle flag from the Capitol building she was a governor of over the way the government is supposed to function? Good times, Nikki. Good times.
RiverRatRuss Offline
#15 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 1:21 PM EST
Joined: 09-02-2022
Posts: 1,035
DrMaddVibe wrote:
It was the same DNC that refused to usher in Civil Rights.

See the pattern yet?

The DNC is a terrorist organization.


Remember that time Haley removed the Confederate battle flag from the Capitol building she was a governor of over the way the government is supposed to function? Good times, Nikki. Good times.


Oh yes I see the pattern of quelling to the Woke with the Olive branch approach... which makes me think, if head of state will she remain catering to the DNC of or use her knowledge learned as the UN Ambassador for the US and seen some pretty shady **** during that tenure to make policies best suited for this United States? the question lies there and right now with Trumps termoulois waters heading to election year.. I view Hailey as the only candidate that possibly seen enough over the years grown a set of balls, just waiting for the opportune time to yank the skirt off and show her Wranglers to the world??Pray Pray
RayR Online
#16 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 1:37 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,892
I firmly believe that Nikki knew better about history which is why she didn't want to initially fall for the trap and say that slavery was the cause of the war. But just like she did a 180 on the Confederate flag flying over the statehouse, she CAVED to the left. All the left and the historically indoctrinated and ignorant classes have to do is call her bad names and she'll throw all knowledge and principles away...and CAVE!

To decimate the argument that slavery was the primary cause of the war comes down to this quote I posted earlier. Of course, the proponents of slavery as the primary cause of the war myth avoid like hell approaching the tons of conclusive evidence against them.

"They ignore the six Union slave states, the Corwin Amendment, the War Aims Resolution (war is being waged for Union, not to end slavery), Lincoln’s very clear statements that the war is about preserving the Union, and a ton of conclusive evidence that slavery was not the cause of the North’s invasion of the South."

Included in the conclusive evidence is actual moral abolitionists were a minority in both the North and the South in both the Republican and Democrat parties and the belief in the superiority of the white race was prevalent. Lincoln himself made it explicitly clear numerous times that he was no abolitionist and that his crusade to "Save the Union" was purely about partisan political and economic power and not about freeing slaves.
Gene363 Offline
#17 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 2:17 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,819
Naley was OK as the SC governor, but she is not suited to be POTUS.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#18 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 3:48 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,440
RayR wrote:
I firmly believe that Nikki knew better about history which is why she didn't want to initially fall for the trap and say that slavery was the cause of the war. But just like she did a 180 on the Confederate flag flying over the statehouse, she CAVED to the left. All the left and the historically indoctrinated and ignorant classes have to do is call her bad names and she'll throw all knowledge and principles away...and CAVE!

To decimate the argument that slavery was the primary cause of the war comes down to this quote I posted earlier. Of course, the proponents of slavery as the primary cause of the war myth avoid like hell approaching the tons of conclusive evidence against them.

"They ignore the six Union slave states, the Corwin Amendment, the War Aims Resolution (war is being waged for Union, not to end slavery), Lincoln’s very clear statements that the war is about preserving the Union, and a ton of conclusive evidence that slavery was not the cause of the North’s invasion of the South."

Included in the conclusive evidence is actual moral abolitionists were a minority in both the North and the South in both the Republican and Democrat parties and the belief in the superiority of the white race was prevalent. Lincoln himself made it explicitly clear numerous times that he was no abolitionist and that his crusade to "Save the Union" was purely about partisan political and economic power and not about freeing slaves.








And in the end he did what?

Oh yeah...he freed the slaves.

Probably why he gets the adoration he earned for that alone.
RayR Online
#19 Posted: Fri, Dec 29 2023, 9:16 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,892
DrMaddVibe wrote:
And in the end he did what?

Oh yeah...he freed the slaves.

Probably why he gets the adoration he earned for that alone.


No DMV, "he" didn't free anybody, he was already dead.
He deserved no adoration for what his real plans for the slaves were, so the Church of Lincoln concocted the: "Great Emancipator" propaganda narrative in part to whitewash the slaughter of 750,000 men, women, and children, including slaves by guns, starvation and disease as some sort of righteous moral crusade.
Besides the victors needed the former slaves as political pawns, the less they knew of his true goals would have made it easier for them to exalt "Father Abraham" in the eyes of the emancipated and make them subservient to the Republicans..

What was Lincoln’s Plan for Freed Slaves?

Feb 28, 2023 by Brion McClanahan

Quote:
What did Lincoln propose to do with freed slaves?

The answer might surprise you. He famously told Alexander H. Stephens they could “root, hog, or die”, but Lincoln had another idea.

He wanted to ship them out of the country to anywhere that would take them.

When a trial run in Haiti failed about mid-way through the War, Lincoln supposedly backed off of his colonization dream, but as Sebastian Page and Phil Magness have shown, Lincoln pursued colonization until the day he was assassinated.

What does this mean? Lincoln never deviated from his long standing “white dream” as Lerone Bennett called it.

He always wanted colonization to be a voluntary process, as did every proponent of the plan, but he always hoped that freed slaves would take him up on the offer.

This nicely fit with Northern Republican visions–particularly in the Midwest–of a free white Western expanse. Free soil, free labor, free men had a white basis.

Lincoln could have opened this land to former slaves, but no Republicans would have supported this move. They also wouldn’t support compensating former slave owners, either. Lincoln tried that, too. Republicans didn’t want to prop up former slaves in a Northern back yard, and they certainly didn’t want to help Southerners who to them were subhumans.

Instead, Lincoln looked to foreign land to rid the United States of a potential race war.

This was not unlike his idol, Henry Clay, who actively promoted colonization while in Congress and worked with the American Colonization Society.

When voluntary colonization did not seem to be popular, Lincoln fell back on his quip to Stephens.

More in the podcast....

https://www.brionmcclanahan.com/blog/what-was-lincolns-plan-for-freed-slaves/
RayR Online
#20 Posted: Sat, Dec 30 2023, 10:25 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,892
DiLorenzo defends Nikki Haley's initial response before she CAVED to the LEFT like a COWARD.

Nikki Haley Was Just Expressing the Views of Abraham Lincoln and the 1861 House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate

Thomas DiLorenzo

Quote:
The neocons and their Demo-Bolshevik party comrades have blown a gasket over Nikki Haley’s response to a question about the cause of the Civil War during a Republican debate. Her Great Crime is that she failed to repeat the official deep state line that: The slaves were not slaves before the South seceded; the South kidnapped millions of black people by seceding and made them slaves; saintly New Englanders and various other Yankees then were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands solely for the benefit of black strangers in the South (while at the same time digging up black graves in New England so that they wouldn’t taint white New England purity).

But Nikki was just referring to the explanations given to the entire world in 1861 about the cause of the war by Lincoln and both houses of Congress.

The official July 22, 1861 War Aims Resolution, also known as the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, clearly states that the sole purpose of the invasion of the Southern states was to keep the union physically intact, and NOT to interfere with the “established institutions of those states,” by which they meant slavery.

Lincoln’s famous letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862 said the same thing: “I would save the union” he said, even if slavery persisted.

Lincoln, the Congress, and the U.S. military were all guilty of treason, defined in Article 3, section 3 as “only” levying war upon the United States,” with “United States” in the PLURAL, meaning the individual states, not something called the U.S. government in D.C. And they destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers and did not “save” it.

They were all guilty of war crimes as well for intentionally waging war on civilians — AMERICAN civilians, not foreign civilians as with the bombing of Dresden and Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/nikki-haley-was-just-expressing-the-views-of-abraham-lincoln-and-the-1861-house-of-representatives-and-the-u-s-senate/
RayR Online
#21 Posted: Sun, Dec 31 2023, 12:17 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,892
"Nikki New Taxes"?
"enemy of the working-class"?

Is this true?

I heard some people say that Nikki was a great conservative Republican governor.
Well...Likely the same people that would say Lincoln was a great conservative Republican president

Trump Campaign Slams Nikki Haley as ‘the Enemy of the Working-Class’ and Gives Her New Nickname

by Cassandra MacDonald
Dec. 31, 2023 10:00 am

Quote:
Former President Donald Trump slammed neoconservative presidential candidate Nikki Haley as “the enemy of the working class” on Friday.

Trump also gave Haley a new nickname — “Nikki New Taxes.”

The former president previously referred to the hawkish candidate as “bird brain.”

In a press release titled “KISS OF DEATH: Nikki New Taxes,” the campaign warned that Haley “pushed for a WHOPPING 60% increase in the state gas tax in South Carolina after promising voters she would never do so.”

“She also voted for an unconscionable 20% increase in the state sales tax, making her the enemy of the working-class and an ally of lobbyist cronies taking advantage of impressionable politicians looking for their approval,” the campaign continued.

The press release explained, “Nikki Haley’s shameful record as governor has now been exposed, and voters are witnessing who she really is: a tax wielding politician who is more interested in doing the bidding of her puppetmasters instead of doing what’s right for the American people.”

More...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/trump-campaign-slams-nikki-haley-as-enemy-working/
RayR Online
#22 Posted: Mon, Jan 1 2024, 2:06 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,892
Here it is...Straight from the televised leftist mental institution known as MSNBC.
These experts are gonna tell you what da civil War was all about. Beer

Clint Smith, Staff Writer for that LEFTY magazine, The Atlantic says "The Confederacy was a treasonous territory that fought a war, singular predicated on maintaining and expanding the antigen of slavery"

Ex-Republican Congressman David Jolly, who I've heard was a LEFTY RINO with TDS and left the Republican Party joins the circle jerk with host Julián Castro.

Nikki Haley’s Civil War comments underscore America’s understanding of our own history

https://youtu.be/SzlXEdnFU38?si=RFOHGuUAWEAeU6vi

Can you believe Jolly said this on another MSNBC show?

Quote:
“Look, I mean, this is a party that trades on racism and xenophobia and misogyny, and tries to gloss over it as though they don’t really do so. But they do. And the reason they do is the failure of leadership from leading politicians like Nikki Haley to… stand up in the face of misogyny and racism and xenophobia. And then you’re colored with it. And she is, today, the party is today, and it’s hopefully why they lose to Joe Biden in November.”

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ex-republican-congressman-says-gop-trades-on-racism-and-xenophobia-and-misogyny/


Once again, "They ignore the six Union slave states, the Corwin Amendment, the War Aims Resolution (war is being waged for Union, not to end slavery), Lincoln’s very clear statements that the war is about preserving the Union, and a ton of conclusive evidence that slavery was not the cause of the North’s invasion of the South."
tailgater Offline
#23 Posted: Mon, Jan 1 2024, 9:59 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Haley's response was the right one, although if it were me I would have at least mentioned slavery.

Think about it. For an election in 2024 the topic of slavery is a useless discussion. We don't have slavery today, and we're not moving in that direction. But many feel that the country is growing more divided, and state's rights are a key aspect.
If this were an honest question, that would be the intent. To see if America and her new leadership could learn from the past.
Instead, we get some jerk wad trying to race shame a viable candidate.

RayR Online
#24 Posted: Mon, Jan 1 2024, 11:39 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,892
Nikki couldn't handle the race-shaming by the idjut...SO SHE CAVED! LOL LOL LOL
DrMaddVibe Offline
#25 Posted: Tue, Jan 2 2024, 3:03 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,440
RayR wrote:


Nikki Haley Was Just Expressing the Views of Abraham Lincoln and the 1861 House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate

Thomas DiLorenzo

[/color]



Did she quote the Emancipation Proclamation as well?
RayR Online
#26 Posted: Tue, Jan 2 2024, 3:26 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,892
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Did she quote the Emancipation Proclamation as well?


No, I don't think so. If she did, that would have been really dumb because The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free anyone including the "enslaved" (that's what lefty calls them because it sounds nastier than just "slaves") in the six Union slave states. Lincoln knew his unconstitutional executive order dicktate was just BS propaganda.
RiverRatRuss Offline
#27 Posted: Tue, Jan 2 2024, 5:50 PM EST
Joined: 09-02-2022
Posts: 1,035
Civil War Ended in April 9, 1865

Lincoln Caught a Bullet on April 14, 1865

Ratification of Slavery did not happen until the 13th Amendment in December 18, 1865 and the 14th Amendment Ratified July 9, 1868 abolishing Slavery across the USA and Keeping Southern Confederates from holding office "Insurrection" I can hear Billy Idol's Song playing.. Think
the 15th amendment gave the black men the rights to vote or in other words all US Citizens the right to vote equally... accept Women they had to wait at the back of the bus, errr umm.. a little while longer!!! Once they got their voice they ain't shut up since!!! Yes Dear!!! d'oh! Brick wall Brick wall
RayR Online
#28 Posted: Wed, Jan 3 2024, 12:23 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,892
I just saw Nikki on Newsmax, I don't know if she was expecting it but they put her on the spot and replayed the idjut reporter asking her about the cause of the Civil War. Anyway, her eyes first bulged like a deer in headlights and she then commenced with the same old meaningless word salad she used before and whined that she didn't know what she was thinking, that she was overthinking the question, and bha bha bha...South Carolina, Confederate flag above the statehouse, we don't want no slaverrry any more,..blah blah blah.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#29 Posted: Wed, Jan 3 2024, 12:26 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,440
Sounds more like her bleeding out on the stump...boo frickety hoo.
RayR Online
#30 Posted: Fri, Jan 12 2024, 12:49 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,892
Some Republicans think only Democrats say dumb stuff about American history and think they are smart to say it. Well, it ain't so.
It's as if both virtue-signaling R and D pundits believe that they can say anything to fit their activist agenda and all their faithful readers don't have the critical thinking skills to investigate and think things through and conclude what is true and what is false.

The Latest “Straussian” Neocon Lincoln Lie

Thomas DiLorenzo

Quote:
After Demo-Bolshevik party activists in Colorado and Maine, some of whom dress in judges’ costumes, dictatorially and fascistically declared that Trump could not be on the ballot in those states, the neocons did what they do best: Shout “Neo-Confederate”!!!

The Confederates did not put Lincoln on the ballot in 1860, we hear from Victor Davis Hanson, and his male bimbo/valley girl on Fox News, Jesse Watters. Hence, the Demo-Bolsheviks are to be universally condemned for committing the grave crime of imitating (hide the children please) — Confederates!

This is a lie. As Brion McClanahan pointed out in a recent email about his McClanahan Academy, the political parties were in charge of ballots in 1860 and the states did not take over that task until the 1880s. Moreover, it was the Republican Party that decided to leave Lincoln off the ballot in the Southern states, believing that it would be futile. As McClanahan wrote:

“States did not print ballots before the 1880s. The Parties did all of the work, and without secret ballots, everyone knew who you supported. This allowed for voter intimidation — ask Democrats in Union States during the War . . . . Republicans bargained that they would not get a single vote in the South and therefore did not send any ballots to the cotton States.”

So why are Hanson and other neocons trumpeting this fake history, McClanahan asks. His answer: Because it supports their “R[epublican] good, D[emocrat] bad narrative.”

More importantly, he says, telling the truth about this “doesn’t allow them to run the South as the bogeyman thesis of American history and to virtue signal about their moral self righteousness.” A classic example of what Clyde Wilson calls “the Yankee Problem in America.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-latest-straussian-neocon-lincoln-lie/


The McClanahan article and podcast Tom was referencing:

Did the South Keep Lincoln Off the Ballot?

Jan 6, 2024 by Brion McClanahan
Podcast

https://www.brionmcclanahan.com/blog/did-the-south-keep-lincoln-off-the-ballot/


McClanahan then hits it out of the park again smacking down a historically ignorant Republican columnist at the Washington Times who said Nikki should have answered that reporter by saying “The Civil War was caused by Democrats who wanted to keep their slaves.” Eh?

Dem Dems were Slavers and Traitors!

Jan 12, 2024 by Brion McClanahan
Podcast

Quote:
It’s almost becoming tiresome.

“Republicans were the Party of freedom and Democrats were the Party of slavery, Jim Crow, and treason!”

Modern Republicans really think this tactic will earn more votes.

They’ve been called the stupid party for a reason.

I can just imagine a potential Democratic voter changing his mind while ruminating, “If I cast a vote for this Democrat, I’ll be voting for the Party of treason!” all while looking at the huge bowl of candy the Democrats promise.

But it doesn’t stop the historically ignorant virtue signalling dopes who write for major Republican outlets to keep peddling the lie.

Take Don Feder at the Washington Times. A recent opinion column argued that the “Civil War was caused by Democrats who wanted to keep their slaves.” ( https://bit.ly/48Q7fBp )

Of course this would mean that Republicans had nothing to do with the conflict and were just helpless victims fighting a morally righteous war to free black Americans in bondage.

Except we know all of that is false.

I don’t need to recount the details in an email, but Feder clearly suffers from mental illness.

How else can you explain such a stupid position?

But it seems like the entire establishment has this problem, too. If you are asked a question about the War, just yell SLAVERY! and you’ll be alright.

I learned that on the Simpsons, a cartoon. That is the intelligence level of your average establishment Republican or Democrat.

Or your average Ph.D history professor in the modern academy, someone like Kevin Kruse, Brooks Simpson, Ty Seidule, or Heather Cox Richardson.

But of course, I loved the opportunity to take down this stupid piece on Episode 919 of The Brion McClanahan Show.

https://www.brionmcclanahan.com/blog/dem-dems-were-slavers-and-traitors/
RayR Online
#31 Posted: Thu, Jan 18 2024, 11:53 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,892
Doug Wilson makes some good points in this short video. Besides the fact that Stephen Colbert doesn't make jokes, he is a joke.

Colbert's Sloppy Civil War History | Doug Wilson

Pastor Doug Wilson reacts to Stephen Colbert's sloppy history of the American Civil War--if that's what you want to call it.

https://youtu.be/WzgwkD7PIJQ?si=BPoL1bxBIMmCYr92
RiverRatRuss Offline
#32 Posted: Thu, Jan 18 2024, 1:56 PM EST
Joined: 09-02-2022
Posts: 1,035
While I was traveling to Bum Fugged MO town to pick up my OSB sheeting yesterday we traveled through a little town called Union Missouri I was telling my buddy there was a civil war battle that took place right around this area and I also think Union MO was one of the Towns the Ungers and James Brothers Robbed the banks... can you just imagine having to March 20-30 miles a day to locate a battle grounds, Stage up for the next daylight, march across a field of cannon and Musket rounds filling the air as your shoulder to shoulder with somebody you'll probably never see alive again? then years later have your family paying higher taxes to pay reparations to a family who don't know **** about the civil war accept their grandparents were slaves back in that Era? Reparations should come from the Country who knowingly that sold these folks into Slavery.
RayR Online
#33 Posted: Thu, Jan 18 2024, 2:49 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,892
Russ, it's all virtue signaling, show your acceptance of collective guilt for the actions of past generations that engaged in slavery even if your ancestors didn't, and pay reparations to those today who were never slaves.

To be accepted as a respectable and submissive citizen of the empire today you don't need to bother delving into real history, and as a matter of fact, you don't have to think at all. What you need to do is bend the knee, do what you're told, and answer a question like "What caused the Civil War?" correctly according to The Ministry of Truth. If not you will be mocked and ostracized.

Apu Explains the Civil War's Cause

https://youtu.be/SFwHQYDqf6c?si=Qku5oD_Cje58ZdIJ
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
Back to Top